Likely one of the worst questions ever asked.... I have my own opinion but in the end the question itself is riddled with issues in and of itself.

In the end the link is not too bad in for the most part is fairly sound though as I mentioned (and the linked article) before it can be looked from various angles.

Elmas,

That has got to be the worst video I have ever seen on You Tube.... and that is saying a great deal. The knight is virtually impervious to a slashing sword in armour so why was he so spastic then? He also acts like he can barely move in his armour. No knight worth his weight in dirt would be so immobile…. Or lame.

alot depends on what the time period is. If the battle is taking place in say 1450, the european will almost certainly win due to his equipment.

The katana was forged to be extremely hard so that it would almost never lose its edge, however the hardness make them brittle. Also the shape of a katana places most of the impact at one point. The katana was designed to slice through lightly armored troops; it would almost certainly shatter upon the thick, multi-layered, steel european armor.

This is exactly the reason that in the late middle ages, heavy weapons like flails, warhammers and axes were favored over swords.

I would put my faith in the knight winning. I think knights had more experience in fighting a diverse array of enemies and in general had better armor. In the article provided, there were quite a few obstacles the samurai would need to overcome (for example, fighting against the sword and shield combination), while the knight's armor seems a bit more durable...

Not much of a valid question, but I just can't resist giving my opinion!
Well, we have to look at the fact of the weapons that are in use. Also, the veterancy of the chance encounter's fighters would be a large amount of the outcome. Finally, you will have to factor in the armor. Is the knight fully armored? Is the samurai wearing chainmail? If there is chainmail, then if the weapon is not a sword, if it was maybe a flail or a mace, chainmail would not be much protection. So, you see that it is almost impossible to compare the two.

The samurai would lose for one reason: I partake in Akido and have used the boken, a katan made of wood so you wouldn't cut yours self. When it is katana vs katana, both combatants must slide off each others blades to reduce damage to your sword. The katana cannot be used to move foward and push the enemie's attack, like a longsword. It might penatrate chainmail, but a katana is screwed against a full plate of armor. A knight could knock the Samuria down with his shield and slash through his wooden/leather breastplate and kill the Samuria

I have never heard of any event of such in the middle ages but the closest you'd get is when genghis khan fought the germans (tuetons back then). Unfortunetley genghis was a mongol not a japanese samuri or shogun although I think it is the closest you would get to it. Although you must remember that every european country's knight's were trained diffrentley and that the tuetons had just gone into decline after the 3rd crusade and the death of Barbborrossa. To simplyfy it I would think that the European knight's would have the advantage due to mass numbers and technology. The japanese samuri's major events were in the 1500's and yet the middle ages have been ruffly worked out by historians to be from 500-1500 although medieval events were from 1000-1500. Good loook ij your quest to finding the answer but remember this, if it has not happened then you can only think 'what if ?'

There can be no triumph without loss,no victory without suffering,no freedom without sacrifice.

Assuming both are skilled, my money is on the samurai. Why? Because, nearly all medieval knights wore leather armor, the same as the samurai did. Metal armor cost as much as a house back then, only the super rich could afford it. If not, he would not be in metal head to foot, and the samurai were trained well in order to be extremely swift. I think he would get a critical blow in from behind the neck or the like.

I hate to say this but one of the key parts of knighthood was the requirement of metal armour. This seems to be a 11th century on think with the rise of a knightly fief... which was intended to provide the money for weapons, armour and horse. It would actually be highly unlikely a knight did not have metal armour or some nature. Even earlier than this Charles the great in the 8th and 9th century is pushing very similar systems for metal arms and armour. Not sure who told you leather would be most common armour for knights but at least in medieval europe this is not the case.